MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026867235 · doi:10.1089/lrb.2012.0020

Determining the Precision of Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectric Impedance Spectroscopy in the Assessment of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

2013· article· en· W2026867235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLymphatic Research and Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsLymphedemaMedicineNuclear medicineBreast cancerDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryBioelectrical impedance analysisExtracellular fluidIn vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopyRadiologyBone mineralBody mass indexMagnetic resonance imagingCancerOsteoporosisInternal medicineChemistryExtracellular

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The composition of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) has been shown to evolve from the initial accumulation of fluid to the development of fibrotic lesions and abnormal fat deposition. Therefore, precise and reliable assessments of BCRL are required to develop accurate staging and management. Although dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bioelectric impedance spectroscopy (BIS) have been used to assess BCRL, no study has evaluated the precision of these two modalities in the same cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We determined the precision of DXA and BIS in lymphedematous (LE) and nonaffected (NA) arms of 24 women with Stage II unilateral BCRL. Precision was calculated from the results of paired bilateral arm measurements obtained from DXA scans measuring fat, lean, and bone mineral masses, BIS measuring extracellular fluid (ECF) and total fluid volume, and circumferential tape measurements (CM) of the arms to calculate the anatomic volume. Precision error was expressed as the root mean square (RMS) of the coefficients of variation (%CV) and standard deviations (SD). RESULTS: The precisions of DXA and BIS varied from 1.16% (DXA measurements of LE arm total volume) to 1.86% (BIS LE arm total fluid volume) and from 0.95% (DXA lean mass of NA arm) to 1.72% (DXA BMC of NA arm). Precision of CM measures of arm volume were 1.71% CV for LE arm and 2.51% CV for NA arm. The fat and lean masses of the LE arm exceeded the NA arm by about 15% (p<0.0001). ECF and total fluid volume of LE arm was 22.6% and 19% greater than the NA arm (p<0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: For BCRL, these findings suggest that DXA and BIS are two measurement instruments that provide acceptable levels of precision for the measurement of arm lean mass, fat mass and ECF volume, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it